Sunday, January 24, 2010

Book: Reconciliation - Religious Tolerance/Pluralism in Islam

Okay, this is still Chapter 2 of this book. I've finished Chapter 2, mind you, but she covers several different topics, so I'm going to try and break up my posts into the topics instead of one, humongous long post. :)

**DISCLAIMER: I'm summarizing what the author says in this book, without editorializing. By no means should any of this be taken to be my opinion or my agreeing with her. Or should the assumption be made that what she states is correct or true.**

She starts with the question that many people ask, can Muslims use ancient texts for explanation and guidance in the modern world? Of course, she brings up immediately the point that *any* follower of *any* religion accepts the universality of their respective doctrine. Whether you speak of the Torah and the Jews, the Bible (Old and New Testaments) and the Christians, or the Qur'an and Muslims - all believers believe that their texts were meant not only for the specific times of their revelations, but for all time. Meant to guide their followers throughout the ages.

Some, undoubtedly, would still question whether any Abrahamic (or, indeed, any faith at all) can be looked at for ideas such as pluralism and individual autonomy or if that isn't merely forcing modernist notions of human rights and other democratic ideals on a message revealed in another era. She claims that for issues not explicitly mentioned in the Qur'an, *modern* scholars must evaluate the historical context at the time of the Qur'an and interpolate universal principles that can be applied to contemporary issues. "The message of Islam is subject to ijtihad and ijma. In every age, reason is applied to its constant principles to arrive at a consensus of interpretation for that age."

As to the 'raging debate' within Islam on how Islam relates to other cultures and other religions, Ms. Bhutto believed that Islam had, throughout its history, actually embraced other cultures and religions in ways far more accommodating and respectful than any of the other monotheistic religions in their early periods. While Islam now has the image (and attitude) of being closed and intolerant, in its beginning, and at the true heart, nothing is further from the truth. Much as extremists would like to believe (and have the world believe) otherwise.

"Islam accepts as a fundamental principle the fact that humans were created into different societies and religions, and that they will remain different: 'And if your Lord had pleased He would certainly have made people a single nation, and they shall continue to differ.' And: 'And if your Lord had pleased, surely all those who are in the earth would have believed, all of them; will you then force men till they become believers?' God did not will everyone on earth to be adherents of one religion or members of one culture. If He had wanted this, He would have ordained it so. This means that God created diversity and asked believers to be just and to desire justice in the world. Thus it flows that God wants tolerance of other religions and cultures, which are also created by Him.

"The Qur'an reveals that God sent 120,000 prophets. Thus, it can be argued that in a Muslim state, diverse points of view will be represented and must be protected. The Qur'an does not simply preach tolerance of other religions; it also acknowledges that salvation can be achieved in all monotheistic religions. Freedom of choice, especially in matters of faith, is a cornerstone of quranic values. This freedom, of course, leads to pluralism in religion, both within Islam and outside. The quranic preference for freedom of choice clearly manifests a divine desire for pluralism and religious diversity; examples of this from the Qur'an are clear and striking: 'You shall have your religion and I shall have my religion.' The Qur'an unambiguously desires choice in religious matters.

"Quite remarkably and uniquely, the Qur'an acknowledges that other religions can lead to salvation. For example, the Holy Book says: 'Surely those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabians, whoever believes in Allah and the Last Day and does good, they shall have their reward from their Lord, and there is no fear for them, nor shall they grieve.'

"Islam embraces all humanity under one God, discrediting all other exclusive religious claims to salvation. I don't believe there is anything quite like this in any religion on earth."

The Qur'an promotes religious pluralism. It does not seek to 'cancel out' or supersede the previous revelations. Rather, the multitude of monotheistic religions is seen by God as serving a purpose: the establishment of morally upright and ethical people. God created man with intrinsic values of justice and equality. This global community that God created is commanded to 'strive with one another to hasten virtuous deeds' or, in other translations, 'compete with one another in good works.'

The Qur'an, according to Ms. Bhutto, specially sanctifies those who believe in the one true God, and live a good and virtuous life. It does not say that only Islam is the route to salvation. "No human being can limit divine mercy in any way."

Islam believes that people must be allowed choice in religion, and that no religion can be forced upon people. Contrast this basic core value to those who claim Islam as their faith, but would force everyone to be Muslim. And not just Muslim, but *their* version of Islam. Conversion or death - the spread of Islam by the 'sword'. Ms. Bhutto believed, deeply, that this is antithetical to Islam, and to the desires of God Himself for the world He created. If He didn't delight in variety and desire it, why create it?

She believed that Islam encourages pluralism. It encourages peaceful coexistence with others. It is God who created the universe into many tribes and nations. All are created equal before God. All have a common ethical responsibility toward one another, having been, as she says, created from a single soul (Adam). This, she says, this concept of equality, is what underlies the pluralism and tolerance at the heart of Islam.

"It is ironic that many Muslim societies became intolerant with the passage of time while Western nations became more accepting of the tolerance and pluralism of Islam. Islam accepts as worthy of salvation all those who believe in one god as the Master and Creator. In Christianity, Jesus is the only route to salvation: 'For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.'

"In contract to other great religions' attitudes toward non adherents, Muslims accept Jews and Christians as 'people of the Book.' Thus Muslim global terrorists, including Osama bin Laden, display a striking ignorance of Islam. They distort the message of Islam while at the same time using the name of religion to attract people to a path to terrorism. Bin Laden claims, 'The enmity between us and the Jews goes back far in time and is deep rooted. There is no question that war between the two of us is inevitable.' This comment contradicts 1,300 years or peaceful coexistence between Muslims and Jews, specifically in the Middle East and Spain. In fact, relations between the two communities were historically quite good. Indeed, when the Jews of Spain were expelled during the Inquisition, those who fled chose - almost without exception - to relocate in Muslim nations, where they knew they would be welcomed and accepted, and actually were.

"The same sort of bigotry, inconsistent with the teachings of the Prophet and the tenets of Islam, was recently presented by Anjum Chaudri, a radical British mullah, in a BBC interview with Stephen Sackur. Chaudri rather remarkable said, 'When we say 'innocent people' we mean Muslims, as far as non-Muslims are concerned...they have not accepted Islam, as far as we are concerned that is a crime against God.' He went on to say that 'you must hate and love for the sake of Allah...I must have hatred toward everything which is not Islam.' His statements are a contradiction of the Islamic message, which considers believers in one God to be 'Muslims' and accepts the sanctity of all the primary religious texts of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Nevertheless, these hateful misinterpretations receive media attention and thus become part of the infectious distortion of Islam.

"Recently on American television, the right-wing commentator Ann Coulter created a great stir by suggesting that Jews needed to be 'perfected' and by being perfected would become Christians. She repeatedly called Christians 'perfected Jews.' There is no parallel concept of exclusion anywhere in Islamic holy texts and doctrine. In Islam, all monotheistic religions are seen as paths to salvation. In Islam, Muslims, Jews, Christians, and all those who believe in a monotheistic god will be judged by their human conduct while on earth by God and not on the basis of the specific religion that they practice."

~~~~

And...wow. That wound up being long anyway.

33 comments:

  1. Buying this book. Wow I have such respect for this woman and I haven't even read her book! Thank God for people like her.

    ReplyDelete
  2. That's really interesting and I like how tolerant she is.

    Oh my word, I just saw what you wrote about Captain Awesome being taken. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!! (That's me dying laughing!)

    *ahem*

    Thanks for sharing this from the book. I wonder what you think of it's inclusiveness. It sounds great to me and I realllllllllllllllllllllly wish I could believe this way.

    But is it truth?

    or is it a ploy of Satan to make people believe anything goes?

    *sigh*


    And how did Islam go from this kind of toleration to what is preached often today?


    And I just need to get this off my chest. I was ranting about polygyny this evening and my friend Samer told me in our conversation that Muslim men were allowed to rape women if the conquered army's men had raped their women. (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)


    Soooooo, Muslim hubby goes off to war and because the enemy had raped us, Muslim hubby and Company are allowed to rape the enemy's women.

    Now am I illogical in thinking if my husband goes off to war and rapes, oh, say, 10 or 20 women because he is defending MY honor...ummm, do I really want him to come back home to me like that? Here I am, Sweetie. Freshly off my raping rampage where I've been with numerous women.

    *gag*

    Am I a prude for this? I know I am practically ancient compared to you, but still.


    (Don't think I missed your old wisecrack on that other post, Missy.)

    ;)

    ReplyDelete
  3. LK,

    I know. I find myself loving the theology she espouses, even as I know that it is not, sadly, the reality we have to live with.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Susanne,

    She was remarkably tolerant. As though her murder wasn't tragic enough, to see how she saw her faith, to see just a little of what she wanted for her people, and to know that that vision has been delayed, if not killed with her, makes it just that extra bit of tragic.

    *revives Susanne* We can't have Captain Awesome dead on the floor. Bad for morale. :)

    I *like* the message of inclusiveness, of course. I mean, isn't it so much easier to believe that, ultimately, all choices (assuming they are non-harmful ones) are right? However, if we are true to Christian teaching, we cannot accept the 'all paths lead to the center' outlook. As easy and comforting as it is. And it is, of course.

    I can only know that I believe Christianity is true, and therefore the only path to salvation is through Christ. I also know that I cannot judge the state of another persons soul. I believe that there *can* be salvation outside the church, through the mercy of God. And we have no way of knowing who is covered by that mercy, or why, on this side of the veil.

    'And how did Islam go from this kind of toleration to what is preached often today?'

    An excellent question. She hasn't really dealt with it at this point, and I don't know if she's going to. She does mention the end of the 'Golden Age' of the Muslim empire (hint: it wasn't America. We didn't exist when the Muslim empire fell.) The Mongols sacking of Baghdad did that. And many things led to the state of Islam as it is today, but it's not really a detail de-evolution of the Islamic mindset. (Though she does believe that the turn for more literalist, black and white interpretation - and the 'closing' of ijtihad happened during the medieval period.)

    Hmmm...does Samer back this up with proof? Quotes from the Qur'an or ahadith? I ask only because I'm curious. I hadn't heard of this before. Moving on...

    Would I want my husband back if he'd just gone off to rape innocent women in retaliation for my rape?

    No. Why would the visitation of more pain and suffering, pain that I *intimately* understand, ease my suffering? It only breeds a cycle of the violence, and gives men who have... shall we say, certain inclinations, license and excuse to treat women as property and less than human. No. That being said, if I was raped, and I didn't manage to kill the man myself, I *would* desire my husband to hunt him down. But I admit to my more bloody and primal instincts. I'm not as evolved, morally or spiritually, as a person who wouldn't want the blood of their attacker on the ground. Jail... they don't stay there. What punishment is that, that they get food and shelter and live better than many free, innocent people in our own country? No. I would want blood - but raping an innocent woman? Or dozens, or more? No. I would not welcome that man home, no matter that he thought he was defending or repairing my 'honour'.

    '(Don't think I missed your old wisecrack on that other post, Missy.)'

    :p

    ReplyDelete
  5. I like the way she brings out the nice parts. She was a good politician. The Muslim world needs more voices like hers.

    Susanne said: "how did Islam go from this kind of toleration to what is preached often today?"

    Wahhabism/Salafism - which is the intolerant, legalistic type of Islam being spread around the world from Saudi these days - actually claims to be a return to the original Islam. The question THEY would ask is, how did Islam go from that to the wishy-washy liberal Sufism that was dominant at the decline of Islamic empire? And they see the relaxed tolerant Islam as being responsible for the decline.

    It's all a matter of interpretation as to what was really "original".

    ReplyDelete
  6. Oh, forgot to say, I disagree with this part:

    "Freedom of choice, especially in matters of faith, is a cornerstone of quranic values. This freedom, of course, leads to pluralism in religion, both within Islam and outside."

    based on this verse:

    "Now whenever God and His Apostle have decided a matter, it is not for a believing man or a believing woman to claim freedom of choice insofar as they themselves are concerned: for he who [thus] rebels against God and His Apostle has already, most obviously, gone astray." 33:36

    Freedom of choice within Islam is not allowed. How does this square with no compulsion in religion? I guess you aren't compelled to follow everything, but you won't be considered a believer if you don't.

    I like what she's saying though, it's the kind of Islam I really wanted to believe in (but couldn't).

    ReplyDelete
  7. Sarah,

    Very true.

    She does mention Salafism/Wahabism, and the predecessor of Wahab....Qutb as the extremist, literalist movement within Islam that has sort of taken over.

    'Freedom of choice within Islam is not allowed. How does this square with no compulsion in religion? I guess you aren't compelled to follow everything, but you won't be considered a believer if you don't.'

    The one quibble I have with this book is that she presents her thoughts - Islam promotes plurality/religious tolerance, and gives quick 1, 2, 3 quotes to back her, but doesn't delve into the issues in any depth. She doesn't discuss verses like the one you quote, which contradict her assertion that Islam promotes tolerance of diversity within itself (and outside). I understand that it's not a scholarly work and such things aren't the main thrust of the book, but still. A little discussion of the opposing (and dominant) point of view would be nice.

    'I like what she's saying though, it's the kind of Islam I really wanted to believe in (but couldn't).'

    It's kind of like the 'perfect' version of Islam. It's nice to look at, but it doesn't really exist.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I hope you don't believe what you are reading, and if you do, I hope you go and ask those nice folks at the Greek Orthodox Church what it was like for the Greeks to be under the Turkish Islamic yoke for all those centuries, and what it's been like for the Patriarch of Constantinople to be so well "tolerated". And go find some Palestinian Christians or some Christians in Egypt to ask them how things are working out for them these days, what it's like to see their daughters kidnapped and have their cross tatoos carved out with a pair of scissors and then get raped and forcibly "married" and "converted". Islam is not so tolerant. Never has been, never will be. Mohammed himself went on the warpath and converted by the sword. This is not an origin of tolerance.

    The author of that book is putting an American pluralistic spin onto her religion to make it more palatable to the American mind.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Alana,

    No, of course not. I'm aware of the true 'tolerance' shown by Muslim nations towards others. These posts are just me summarizing what she's saying in the book.

    She's got a very 'positive Islam' point of view. Given that she was a Muslim, that's not surprising. But yes, I am aware that her version of history is just that. Her version.

    Should I make a disclaimer maybe?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Actually though, coexistence in Muslim Spain was pretty good. And I read a book by Christian Arab Amin Maalouf who explained that Christians in Arabia have been much better off under Muslim rule than Jews were in Christian Europe for a long time.

    Alana said: "The author of that book is putting an American pluralistic spin onto her religion to make it more palatable to the American mind."

    That is probably exactly what the Salafis would say!

    The thing is though, you don't have to be American to want pluralism and tolerance, and if Muslims want to go that way then I think this should be supported. Many Muslims will never leave Islam, and I think it's better that they get the chance to understand it like Benazir did. Whether that is original or not, probably doesn't really matter in practice. (I am a hypocrite, because of course it did matter to me when I was researching the religion... but hey.)

    ReplyDelete
  11. This is pretty much the way I see Islam and I'm glad to see there was someone else believing such similar things as me, because of course, most Muslims would disagree with her (and me) on a lot of things.

    The way I see Islam, it is tolerant of other religions, and it teaches that there are many different, monotheistic paths that are a right way to God and Heaven. I think we are to obey God, but that there are so many different ways a person can do that, because of the innate knowledge we all have of what God desires for us.

    I don't think the Qur'an is saying that we can choose *anything* and be right, though. It's obvious that there are things that will lead us astray, and others that will set us on the right path. There always exists a wrong way. We have to make choices and we have the freedom to choose whatever we wish. It might be wrong or it might be right.

    I don't think verse 33:36 shows that Islam is the only religion and that there is only a single interpretation to it. I just think it makes clear that we are to obey God (and his messenger/message, prophets and what they brought) to stay on the right path. Nothing about that verse tells me that it is only the Salafi interpretation that I should follow. Not even that it should only be Islam (except with the definition of Islam as submission to God, something a person of any religion can do).

    I think I might need to read this book. Continue to post about it!

    ReplyDelete
  12. Amber, you asked:

    "Hmmm...does Samer back this up with proof? Quotes from the Qur'an or ahadith? I ask only because I'm curious. I hadn't heard of this before. Moving on..."

    I'd not heard it before either and was literally shocked. I always had good impressions of how Muslims treated people they fought so this was NOT something I was prepared to hear. I asked Samer if it were in the Quran and he said it was in some hadith about rules of war. But he was vague so maybe and hopefully he was wrong.

    I decided to ask Achelois since she is well-read. She's been moving into a new flat so not as blog-active lately. She said..let me ask her permission first and I'll get back to you. Sorry!

    Just wanted you to know I am searching in order to answer your question.

    I'm enjoying the comments on this post!

    ReplyDelete
  13. Sarah,

    There are isolated cases of Islam working, sort of, the way Ms. Bhutto claims it is supposed to work in regards to other faiths. However, the vast majority of examples that one can find show that those are the exception, and not the rule. And even in cases where the non-Muslim population was not outright abused and persecuted, they are relegated to second class status.

    I think that this book reflects what Ms. Bhutto honestly believed to be the 'true' Islam. It does not, however, reflect the historical reality. But that's not the authors intent. Her intent, I believe, was to get her message out. To try to get more people 'on board' with her vision of Islam. And that's great. It's a shiny, friendly place in Ms. Bhutto's Islam. But it's not real, it never has been, and while I think it'd be wonderful for the entire world if it became real, I have my doubts about it.

    Maybe if she had lived. She seems to have been a very charismatic person - perhaps the sheer force of her could have spread her faith against the extremists. But without her? Who knows. I believe that her husband and children are carrying on in her path. Perhaps one of them inherited both her vision and her drive - but it doesn't usually happen that way.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Candice,

    It's a good book, really. But, of course, the majority of Muslims don't see things the was she (or you) does.

    Having read further into the book, I do feel that she's sort of whitewashed and/ignored the actual history of Islam in favor of promoting her version of 'true' Islam. It's a problem for me, though I do understand why she would do it. I think the book is really more about why democracy and Islam, rather than being antithetical to one another, really go hand in hand.

    'The way I see Islam, it is tolerant of other religions, and it teaches that there are many different, monotheistic paths that are a right way to God and Heaven.'

    But, even there, you specify monotheistic religions. That's an issue I have with Ms. Bhutto as well. She never speaks of tolerance for polytheistic faiths. I'm not saying that polytheism is correct, but with all this talk of tolerance, there's a very big, deliberate black space of people who apparently do not deserve to be tolerated because of their faith.

    'I don't think verse 33:36 shows that Islam is the only religion and that there is only a single interpretation to it. I just think it makes clear that we are to obey God (and his messenger/message, prophets and what they brought) to stay on the right path.'

    But the Qur'an does make the claim to be the last revelation. To be the 'perfect' version of faith. It says to obey 'God and His Apostle' and it means, specifically, Mohammed. And if you follow him, you have to believe that all the previous revelations weren't preserved. That God didn't bother to make certain that His message was preserved and that's why Islam is so different from the previous revelations. Because God let them get screwed up. And that's leaving aside the question of whether Mohammed was even a prophet or not.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Susanne,

    It's a very disturbing little fact.

    Whether or not Samer is wrong, the fact that he believes it means that other Muslims do too. So they would feel justified in taking such a course of action. Because God/Mohammed said it was, not just okay, but good. *shudder* It's a very primitive way of looking at things. Not something I'd expect to actually come from God. But, it's a very male, human reaction. 'You touch my toys, I'll touch yours!' It's all about 'honor' and manhood... *rolls eyes*

    Hey, if Achelois doesn't want her answer bandied about for all and sundry, ask her if you can email it just to me. I promise to keep it to myself if that's what she wants. I'd be interested in her answer - she is an excellent source of information.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Hi Amber and Susanne,

    About what Samer said... to be honest I never heard that before. I think he was talking about a cultural 'feeling' based on minority opinion. There is nothing in Quran or hadith about such type of revenge. I agree that it may have shocked you, Susanne, but I assure you it is not true.

    Muslim men can occupy a land and take the women as booty and are allowed to have sex with them too, but not because the opponents raped their women. That is not the reason. The reason is that Allah has made opponents' women halal to Muslim men - they are what their "right hand possesses."

    In the OT a man is asked to marry a war captive he likes BEFORE he has sex with them (see Deuteronomy) but that is not necessary for a Muslim man although he is encouraged to marry pious captives/slaves.

    - Achelois

    ReplyDelete
  17. Suroor, thanks for helping us out here.

    I don't know where Samer got that from, but it was his understanding. NOT that he thought it was right. I could tell from the way he told me that it was one of those things about Islam he didn't feel right about. He had told me how he'd heard of Muslim men having 200+ children in the past and that was possible because they could have sex with their servants. He said how he thought this was rape to him unless the servant girl just so happened to want this man having sex with her. Ummmm, if I'm your servant/slave, I don't usually "want" you, Brutus. No matter how studly you are in your own opinion.

    Our whole discussion stemmed from something I read on another blog about polygyny and I told how I detested men who did such things for wrong reasons.

    And then he told me this thing about raping women and I was stunned. I'm glad it's likely NOT true. *whew!* But still, as Amber said, for people to think it's true - even if only a few people - is not good.

    Samer apparently played "devil's advocate" with his friend Basheer in the past. He said he remembers them having a discussion and Samer said, "So if Muslim men can have sex with their slaves, then Muslim women can do the same with theirs, right?" and Basheer was like "Noooo, noooo. Of course not."

    Samer _- "why not? It's fine for the men."

    B -- "Yeah, but it's just different."

    It always is when men make the religious rules. >>>:-(

    I think polygyny and affairs and temp marriages break down the bonds of families which are the backbone of society. God first instituted FAMILY -- not church, mosques or governments. Families make up all the rest. And if you can cheapen families by giving dear ol' husband his heyday at having sex with any gal who strikes his fancy then you can destroy the family.

    My opinion anyway.

    Btw, even if having sex were halal for that which your right hand possesses, how would I feel as a wife of a man who was having sex on the side with all the slave girls?

    Ugh. This stuff just disgusts me. I couldn't believe in Islam for all the horrid sexual practices condoned by it.

    I'd rather be in hell than see men enjoying 72 virgins for all eternity. A heavenly sexual orgy just isn't heaven for me.

    But I'm not a man so . . .

    ReplyDelete
  18. The history of any religion is bound to be a bit grizzly. Even the NT depicts slavery that wasn't abolished, if I remember right. Christians and Jews were not equal to Muslims under Muslim rule (they were "dhimmis", and that has a Quranic basis if I remember correctly). But that is no different than the way any other empire treated its subjects. It probably was fairly progressive, for the time.

    There are Muslims who say sharia law and Islamic dominance is still the perfect model. Which isn't that hard to agree with if you think Islam really is timelessly perfect in its original implementation. Why shouldn't it rule the roost if it is the most just system, best for the world? It alarms me that people think that, but maybe that's just me not seeing the beauty of it.

    But it does seem like there are a lot of Muslims who wouldn't want to go back to the original Islamic system. Tariq Ramadan is another prominent reformist for example. Many Muslims don't even know about things like concubinage and wouldn't want to bring it back.

    And who I am to say it isn't perfectly valid for Islam to progress beyond its origins. Maybe it was supposed to do that all along. That is probably what I would have said a few months ago. Right now I feel less generous towards all religions.

    Verse 33:36 certainly doesn't say the Salafi interpretation is the correct one, but it doesn't seem to allow for any differences of opinion between believers. In its immediate context of course, with the prophet around to answer questions, there wouldn't have been differences of opinion. These days, there obviously are differences of opinion, but all the same every group seems ready to brand the other groups as disbelievers. Verses like that make it difficult for me to imagine diversity being happily accommodated within Islam.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I once looked into whether rape was punished in any hadiths. I found at least one page saying that it was. Rape seems to have meant forcing a woman into *unlawful* sex, though. It was the man's right to have sex with his wives and slaves, and consent as a concept didn't really exist within those lawful relationships, I think. Those women would be resigned to it and probably wouldn't ask themselves whether they wanted it or not. It was a totally different culture like that!

    ReplyDelete
  20. Achelois,

    I'm glad to hear it's not actually supported by the Qur'an or hadith. It's bad enough people are thinking it anyway, but for it to actually be there? Yech.

    More of that whole...women are property mind set. I know it's not limited to Islam - it's a wide ranging view in history. It's still disgusting. If you have sex with someone who doesn't have the ability to say no, it's rape.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Susanne,

    Well, at least Samer knows better than to think it's a good thing, even if he does think it's Islamic. :)

    'He had told me how he'd heard of Muslim men having 200+ children in the past and that was possible because they could have sex with their servants. He said how he thought this was rape to him unless the servant girl just so happened to want this man having sex with her. Ummmm, if I'm your servant/slave, I don't usually "want" you, Brutus. No matter how studly you are in your own opinion.'

    Samer's right. Of course, so are you. A slave/servant, even if they *say* they want to have sex with their master, it's really a matter of, at the least 'dubious consent'. Your master has all the power over you. What you eat, wear, what work you're forced to do, whether or not you're sold, whether you live or die. If he asks you to sleep with him, chances are high that you're not going to feel as though you really have any choice. And that's assuming he even bothered to ask, as opposed to just demanding you lay back and 'think of England'.

    re: the difference between men & women and their 'right hand possessions' - it's a mans world, baybee! If a woman slept with a slave, she'd be a whore. A man can do it because...droit de seigneur? God said it was okay? Because women are just there for pleasure. Men do own them after all. *please imagine my words dripping red with sarcasm/blood*

    ReplyDelete
  22. Sarah,

    It's true that all throughout history there are things about our religions that we look at and are horrified. Slavery and the misuse of the Bible to justify it just being one of them.

    For me, part of the difference is that certain things aren't just extrapolated from silence or historical mention in the Qur'an, but actually laid out as divine law. Such as the dhimmitude/second class status of all those who aren't Muslim.

    But, if Islam was the 'perfect model' for both religious and political rule, why did it fall? Sharia law came about long after the death of Mohammed. It evolved - it wasn't sent down alongside the Qur'an as a divine mandate.

    'Why shouldn't it rule the roost if it is the most just system, best for the world? It alarms me that people think that, but maybe that's just me not seeing the beauty of it.'

    No, I think it's a lack of beauty in the system, not you not seeing it. But then, I don't see it either, so I could be prejudiced. I'd much rather live in my flawed democratic nation than under Islamic/sharia rule.

    There are many, perhaps even the majority of Muslims, who don't want to live under sharia either. Does that say anything about the lack of growth in sharia? That perhaps it is no longer relevant? That is only worked in the ages that created it?

    re: rape.

    Interesting. But apparently the definition of 'rape' was nothing close to what it truly is. *shakes head*'

    Rape seems to have meant forcing a woman into *unlawful* sex, though. It was the man's right to have sex with his wives and slaves, and consent as a concept didn't really exist within those lawful relationships, I think. Those women would be resigned to it and probably wouldn't ask themselves whether they wanted it or not. It was a totally different culture like that!'

    *nods* But, looking back, we can say, okay, that was the historical truth. It was what it was. But we know better now. We know that those women were raped, whether they would have thought so or not.

    ReplyDelete
  23. I've heard people saying they find certain aspects of the OT distasteful too, but I've not read it all so I don't know.

    I try to be open-minded and say the best political system is a matter of opinion, but as you say, opinions are definitely moving towards tolerance and diversity and equality and all of that. It seems such an obvious choice, too! I find that really interesting actually. Do we really think completely differently from people in centuries past?

    I could be wrong about rape, perhaps men were not allowed to force their slaves (or wives for that matter). I remember reading an article saying something to that effect (don't remember where) but it seemed like the scholar was clutching at straws to demonstrate that raping slaves was not allowed. I personally think consent just wasn't a concept that occurred to anyone at that time. Again, though, hard to believe we're THAT much more moral in our thinking than people were in centuries past. Are we? Or is it just our prejudice making us think so? I don't know!

    ReplyDelete
  24. Sarah,

    Really, read the whole Old Testament. There is some nasty stuff in there.

    I like to think that our thinking has evolved. We've come to the conclusion that things that happened in the past, despite being the norm in that day and age, are *not* in the best interests of the individual or the society as a whole. We've accepted, for the most part, that humans have an intrinsic value (however you arrive at that conclusion) and that treating another human as less 'human' than you, or as chattel, does harm.

    I think we do think differently than people in the past. We kind of have to. Our thinking is informed by the world/society in which we grow up. The fact that, for the most part, we have so much 'free' time is boggling. Such things didn't exist hundreds of years ago, let alone thousands. We're (most of us) no longer struggling to live from day to day. More people have time to *think* and then attempt to implement change, as opposed to just staying alive.

    rape: there's force and then there's not having a choice. A man can rape a woman by hitting her, ripping her clothes off, and having sex with her against her will. A man can rape a woman by simply assuming that it is his right to do so at any given time. He doesn't *have* to use physical force. If he is in a position of power over her and demands sex, and there is the (even unspoken) implication of negative consequences if she does not, then he has forced her.

    What's the line.... 'A difference that *makes* no difference *is* no difference.' - The difference between whether a rapist has to physically harm a woman to rape her, or merely mentally/societally dominate her makes no difference in the end result.

    But that's us looking back and judging a society of the past. In the past, women didn't *have* choices like we do now. No one would have ever thought that a husband didn't have the right to satisfaction at the drop of a hat, as it were. Women were chattel in many senses. We know better now.

    I do feel, despite the 'state of the world', that we have developed morally from our ancestors.

    ReplyDelete
  25. 'And if your Lord had pleased He would certainly have made people a single nation, and they shall continue to differ.' And: 'And if your Lord had pleased, surely all those who are in the earth would have believed, all of them; will you then force men till they become believers?'

    Are those from the Quran? I have a copy but I've been terrible about making time to read it. I've meant to for years now.

    That's more or less how I feel about other religions, I was surprised to see it written out like that. I hadn't heard it anywhere else before and couldn't quite figure out how to phrase my thoughts myself.

    Seems like an interesting book, I'll have to check it out. You are just full of interesting information today. (Or rather, I'm coming across info from you today, I know they weren't from today but I've been out awhile.) Thanks!

    ReplyDelete
  26. Sanil,

    Yes, they're both from the Qur'an. This first line is 11:118 and the second quote is 10:99. But, just like the Bible, you really need to read the *entire* chapter that the verses are taken from. (Plus the tafsir and hadith...)

    I've plowed my way through the Qur'an twice. *shrug* I came away thoroughly unimpressed, to be honest.

    Ms. Bhutto has a habit of pulling out a single verse here and there and stating that the Qur'an supports her position, ignoring the verses that don't, and the historical understanding of the verses.

    It is an interesting book, but less promising than it was in the very beginning. I felt very bubbly and happy with it, but as I've gone on, not so much. It's still a good book, and her vision of Islam is the most...palatable, and perhaps the way Islam would have to go to have a relationship with the rest of the world, but will it?

    ReplyDelete
  27. "The Qur'an reveals that God sent 120,000 prophets."

    What kind of a writer is this who doesn't know that no where in the Quran is it said that 120, 000 prophets were sent? :)

    This figure is from hadith and not from Quran.

    ReplyDelete
  28. "In Islam, all monotheistic religions are seen as paths to salvation."

    Yes, only that it doesn't consider all Jews and Christians to be monotheists and as long as they are dhimmis and pay jizya, they are tolerated :-)

    Sorry, but Bhutto was a poor researcher and a worse reader of the Quran - someone who didn't know hadith from Quran and who didn't find a publisher competent enough to correct her gross error shouldn't be proving anything from the Quran.

    And now I sound so intolerant :D

    ReplyDelete
  29. Achelois,

    Don't worry about it. The more of the book I read, the more obvious issues like what you're bringing up become. It's why I'm not going to do any more posts on it, except at the end when I've finished the book.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Amber, I'm more curious what the purpose of her book is. To give a favorable view of Islam by sharing all the nice verses? Maybe you can share about that when you finish the book.

    Btw, I have copied something onto my blog about Jesus and "Sacred Languages" and the Lord's Prayer. I reallllllly liked it and am curious what you think. So if you get a chance, read it and let me know. It's from "Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes" which I am presently reading and enjoying. I see a whole section about women and Jesus' relation to them. I am excited about reading that part especially! :)

    ReplyDelete
  31. "I once looked into whether rape was punished in any hadiths. I found at least one page saying that it was."

    @Sarah, I think consent by wives did exist otherwise we wouldn't have the hadith that the woman who refuses sex will be cursed by angels all night. It means women (wives and not slaves) did refuse sex and had the *guts* and the awareness to refuse it which is why they had to be corrected with threats of *angelic cursing.*

    Rape in early Islam was defined as forced sex with a free woman (mostly Muslim women or free and influential non-Muslim women), but if a wife or slave didn't want sex and were forced by the husband/master it didn't lead to physical force since verbal force was enough and hence there is no concept of marital rape in Islam. If a husband/master wanted to have sex, the woman had to oblige, if she refused she would be cursed by angels all night. However, I doubt if concubines/slaves had that liberty to deny sex since when they were gifted/captured it happened with the awareness that they would eventually be used for sex by the master.

    ReplyDelete
  32. @Susanne,

    I can see why Samer was disgusted!

    ReplyDelete
  33. @Suroor - I remembered that based on hadiths, a wife couldn't refuse her husband. But you're right, that hadith clearly shows they did at some point feel they could refuse... and were being strongly discouraged from that.

    Yes, I would have thought captives would just assume they might be required sexually and be resigned to it because the man had such power over them. If that was the norm at the time.

    But I guess a wife wouldn't necessarily have thought like that, especially if women were much more powerful when Islam started. I almost forgot that, thanks for the reminder! The idea of infantalised women is so drilled into my mind!

    ReplyDelete

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...